Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Honble Judge: Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Mahinder Kumar Gupta – Appellants
Vs.
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Schiences and Ors. – Respondent
W.P. (C) 22857/2005
Decided On: 15.07.2009
Medical Negligence - Damages - The petitioner claimed damages on the ground of medical negligence due to an Amikacin injection administered in his right eye resulting in vision loss. The court considered the opinions of two medical boards and concluded that the treatment given was in accordance with accepted medical practice and the causal connection between the treatment and the vision loss was not established.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition claiming damages for medical negligence due to an Amikacin injection administered in his right eye, resulting in vision loss.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the treatment given was in accordance with accepted medical practice and the causal connection between the treatment and the vision loss was not established.
Issues: Medical negligence, damages claim, causal connection between treatment and vision loss.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the opinions of two medical boards, which indicated that the treatment given was in accordance with accepted medical practice and the causal connection between the treatment and the vision loss was not established.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to file a civil suit, and the observations made in the order were not binding in the civil proceedings.
Sanjiv Khanna, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming damages on the ground of medical negligence. The allegation is that he was administered Amikacin injection in his right eye while under treatment at the Gurunanak Eye Centre in the year 1997, which has resulted in damage and loss of vision in his right eye.
2. The petitioner had earlier filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum, which was withdrawn. Thereafter, he approached this Court by way of W.P. (C) No. 3980/2000, which was disposed of vide order dated 31st August, 2004 with the following order:
Learned Counsel for the respondent agrees to the proposal in terms of the last order whereby the petitioner will be satisfied if a Medical Board is constituted of AIIMS Doctors to look into the reports of the petitioner as well as the medical treatment given to him and to decide whether the treatment given to the petitioner was inadequate and not in accordance with the protocol and procedure.
In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the Chief of the Eye Centre, AIIMS, shall constitute the Medical Board within a period of 15 days on the receipt of the copy of this order and a decision of the Board shall be communicated to the petitioner and the respondents.
The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
3. In terms of the said order, a medical board was constituted by Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences consisting of 1) Dr. S.P. Garg, Professor Ophthamology, 2) Dr. R.P. Centre., 3) Dr. Raj Pal, Additional Professor of Ophthamology, 4) Dr. R.P. Centre and 5) Dr. Pradeep Venktesh, Asstt. Professor of Ophthamology, 6) Dr. R.P. Centre. After examining the records, the said Board gave the following opinion:
We have carefully gone through the entire records provided of Shri Mahender Kumar Gupta, Son of Late Shri Ganpat Lal Gupta.
The treatment given to the patient (i.e. Intravitreal Injection) has been according to one of the accepted international regimens. The risk of macular infarcation is an established adverse effect of the drug Amikacin, even in the recommended dose.
4. Thereupon, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the opinion given by the medical board with a claim for damages.
5. During the pendency of the present writ petition, vide order dated 4th February, 2008 direction was given to constitute another medical board to examine the grievance of the petitioner. This order was given in view of the contention by the petitioner that he was not given an opportunity to place records available with him before the earlier Board. The new Board constituted by All India Institute of Medical Sciences consisting of Prof. S.P. Garg, Dr. Tanuj Dada and Dr. Pradeep Venkatesh has submitted their opinion dated 27th March, 2008. Operative portion of the said opinion reads as under:
On examination, his best corrected visual acuity was right eye (RE) finger counting (FC) at 1 ft looking in up gaze with +0.75 Ds with -2.00 D Cyl at 10, and left eye (LE) no vision (no PL) with prosthetic shell in place. His Intra Ocular pressure on NCT was 17mm Hg RE. Direct pupil reaction RE was quite brisk. Cornea was clear (within normal limits). IOL was discentered inferiorly. Posterior Segment evaluation was done and revealed Optic disc pallor with Inferotemporal Vascular Sclerosis and Macular thinning. Visual Evoked Response (VER-flash) was 4uv/91 ms RE (amplitude being subnormal).
Conclusion: Vision loss may be either due to Endophthalmitis or drug injection or both.
6. The said report is inconclusive and does not conclusively state that respondent No. 2 or the injection given has resulted in the present condition of the petitioner. Damages cannot be awarded without proof of negligence and establishing medical negligence and without the Court being satisfied that action or inaction on the part of the doctor concerned has causal connection with the injury suffered or disabi
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
